Monthly Archives: May 2016

Hasbrudal writes: Isn’t fascism just a kind of ultra-nationalism, the most important thing is what defines the nation, if it’s a multi-ethnic nation, the fascism will reflect that. If the nation is defined in very narrow terms, e.g. how the Croatian fascists during WW2 viewed Serbs, despite having much more in common on the surface than a Tartar and a Slav from St Petersburg, then it can get very granular. I don’t think Mussolini or Franco gave too much thought to the “Jewish Question” without prompting from Berlin.

There is no such thing as multi-ethnic fascism as far as I can tell. There has never been one single case of multi-ethnic fascism recorded in history. This is probably because the phrase is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. If it’s fascism, it’s not multi-ethnic. If it’s multi-ethnic, it’s not fascism. Period.

In a fascist state, when there are multiple ethnicities, religions or languages spoken, the fascists always, always, always, try to wipe out all of the ethnicities and turn them into a single ethnicity and wipe out all the religions and get everyone to speak one national language. For instance, Franco tried to turn everyone in Spain into a Spaniard who spoke Spanish. Hence he waged war on all of the other ethnicities and their languages. Mussolini waged war on all of the other languages in Italy (falsely called Italian dialects), not to mention the non-Italian languages in Italy. I think he went easy on the Germans in the north so as not to anger Hitler.

Fascism is a sort of nation-building run wild, or you can think like I do and say that all nation-building in the modern era is basically fascist, which it is. This is because all nation-building projects try to dissolve all of the ethnicities in the country and turn them all into one ethnicity and try to wipe out all of the languages in the country and make everyone speak one language.

In the case of religion, fascists would probably try to wipe out all of the other religions and force everyone to be a particular religion. The Croatian Ustashe actually ordered Serbs to convert to Catholicism or die in a similar way that Islam was converted by the sword (convert to Islam or die). ISIS is practicing this sort of convert or die Islam right now. This convert or die method of spreading Islam is very much in the Muslim historical tradition no matter how much Muslims lie and say it isn’t.

As you can probably tell, I do not think too much of nation-building projects. However, I have met people from the 3rd World who justified nation-building projects in strong terms. One man I know was an Iranian Azeri who spoke Azerbaijani but justified the Iranian government’s attempt to wipe out the Azeri language as a necessary step that Iran would have to go through in order to build a nation.

Nation-building projects are also often accompanied by mass killings. The emergence of the state of Israel, birthed in blood like so many new nations, is a good contemporary example of bloody nation-building.

Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Abkhazia, Kurdistan, Lithuania and Latvia are all modern examples of it. The first four were all quite bloody. One of the disgusting things about nationalism and nationalists is that when the nationalists are a minority in state dominated by another ethnic group, they are all about minority rights, decentralization, regionalism, federalism, autonomy, etc.

Then as soon as these nationalist punks get their independence, what’s the first thing they try to do? The first thing they do is persecute all of the new minorities in the land where they are now a majority. Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kurdistan are excellent examples of this. Kurdistan is a particularly awful example, as in Southern Kurdistan only Sunni Muslim Kurds have full rights. Non-Kurds? Of course not. Kurdish Yezidis? Nope. Kurdish Christians? No. Kurdish Shabakis? No. Kurdish Shia Muslims? Nope. Assyrian Christians? Are you kidding? They are not even Kurds. Sunni Muslim Arabs? Not at all. Shia Muslims Arabs? Even worse.

In the first elections in Southern Kurdistan, everyone except for Sunni Muslim Kurds was seriously disenfranchised. I mean in a lot of places they were actually denied the right to vote. Non-Kurdish Sunni Muslims were also driven out of many villages in order that they could be populated by Sunni Muslim Kurds.

With independence, Georgia immediately said that everyone in Georgia was a Georgian and revoked the ethnic and linguistic rights of everyone else. This was the cause of the Ossetian and Abkhazian rebellions. Russia had nothing to do with either of them, especially as they started back in 1991 when Gorbachev was President.

With the new fascist Nazi coup in the Ukraine, the rights of Russian speakers were revoked, and their supporters and politicians were murdered. Keep in mind that the CIA was up their knees in all of this. Everyone was a Ukrainian. No one else had any rights. Hence the declarations of independence in Crimea and the Donbass. Russia had nothing to do with those declarations of independence. Those are Russian speakers in those areas, and they despise Ukrainian nationalists who they call Nazis (because they are).

Keep in mind that Crimea never agreed to become a part of an independent Ukraine. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, the Crimeans said they were not a part of this new country. Several referenda were held in Crimea early on, and the votes were 80-90% for independence.

The new Ukrainian state subsequently calmed them down, and for the next 20-some years the Ukraine was in a stalemate with maybe half the population supporting radical Ukrainian Nazi nationalists and the other half more pro-Russian or wanting a federal state, including all of the non-Russian minorities in Ukraine, of which there are quite a few. So Crimean independence has nothing at all do with Putin, as it started way back in 1991 under Gorbachev as with the Georgian separatist splits.

Every time you hear people talk about Putin the Nazi and Putin the New Hitler and all of that, keep in mind the reality of Russian politics and especially culture.

The real Nazis inside of Russia are all with the Ukies, and they hate Putin for cracking down hard on them. I have seen their webpages on Facebook. Their pages are full of posts raging at Putin and talking about all of the Nazis he has put in jail. During the war, all of the Russian Nazis were with the Ukies who the Russian Nazis said were true blue, real Nazis. In fact, many Russian Nazis went off to fight for the Ukies during the war. Nazis came from all over Europe to fight for the Ukies.

The Duginites that all these idiots call Nazis are not Nazis at all but instead are Russian nationalists. They believe in the concept of a multiethnic Russian empire. These people are 100% with having a Tuvan (essentially a Mongolian) as Defense Minister of Russia. They don’t give two damns about race mixing or even the White race very much. They don’t think like that.

I remember an interview with some Russian nationalist group which had a paramilitary branch that had sent volunteers to fight in the Ukraine war. The interviewer asked if you had to be White to join. The leader was taken aback and said, “Oh no! We are not Nazis! We hate Nazis. We kill Nazis.” He then said that in order to join, you had to speak Russian and practice the Russian Orthodox religion, and that was it. he then pointed out some non-ethnic Russian members of his group around him, including a couple of rather Asiatic-looking fellows. The leader noted where they had come from and pointed that not only were they not Russians but they were not even really White.

I have no idea if Russian nationalists are fascists or not. One thing is certain and that is that they are not racist fascists (Nazis) Personally, I am dubious that they are fascists because they have made an extreme alliance with monarchists, Russian Orthodox culturalists, and Communists. I doubt if there is any real true-blue even Mussolini style (nonracist fascism) fascism in Russia. The Russian nationalists are pretty sui generis.

Jim writes: The problem with cultural explanations is that the behavioral genetic studies on identical twins show very minor effect of “shared environment”. Culture would presumably fall within shared environment. Most human behavior is mostly due to a combination of genetic factors and something not very well understood today called “non-shared environment”.

Surely culture is held constant in almost all of these identical twin studies because all of the twins are growing up in the same culture.

Also what may not matter a lot as a whole is individual shared environments among the same culture. But culture is different from individual micro-environments within a society. Culture is indeed or has the potential to be a super-environment. Culture is “the great molder.” Culture itself is a “super-environment.”

How then does one explain the absolutely incredible changes in Blacks from Africa to the US over centuries? It is almost like we are talking about different species or the transformation of nonhuman animals into humans. The change was that dramatic.

Human behavior does indeed differ dramatically around the world as culture changes, does it not?

Are you familiar with the stories of the Moiriori versus the Maori? No doubt genetically they were quite similar, or if anything, the Maoris, who acted much worse, may have even been more advanced genetically.

Furthermore the Moiriori had behaved in a typical Maori fashion for centuries after coming to Chatham Island, until at some point, they realized that if they kept being so savage, they were going to all kill each other and go extinct. At this point, a charismatic leader rose up against them and preached radical nonviolence as the only salvation of the Moiriori. This caught on and soon enough the Moiriori were some of the peaceful people on Earth who were such pacifists that they would hardly even fight back if attacked. They stayed like this for a few hundred years until the Maori invasion and their subsequent extermination.

How could the Maori and the Moiriori have been so different, especially as the Moiriori had been Maori when they colonized the island? How could the Moiriori themselves have made such dramatic changes from as savage as you can get to as peaceful as you can get?

Culture. Culture culture culture culture culture. In the first case, two different cultures and in the second case, culture change among a group.

How did the Germans and Japanese change from the most vicious and savage people on Earth to some of the most peaceful on Earth, in both cases so pacifistic that it is almost pathological?

Culture. Culture culture culture culture. In both cases, there were dramatic changes from the most savage people around to some of the most peaceful people around very rapidly, within a matter of decades. This was a case of rapid culture change among a group.

In Venezuela, there is a tribe called the Yanonamo who are some of the vicious people on Earth. They live in a state of constant violence. They are always at war with surrounding tribes, and in addition, there are high levels of violence even among their own community. They beat their wives, and both sexes beat the children. There is also a lot of feuding-type violence among the men. By age 40, 100% of Yanonamo men have committed a homicide.

Not extremely far away, also in the Venezuelan Amazon rainforest, is a tribe that is fascinating for being one of the most pacifistic peoples on Earth. Their behavior is so different that they draw anthropologists from all over to study them. They may be called the Pemon, but I am not sure. I very much doubt if their genes are much different than the Yanonamo.

Ultra Cool, a Brazilian commenter writes about this post: This post is 100% true and this is something I have personally observed, as a simple example, I noticed Whites from the underclass and slums are some 5 times more likely to be low functioning sociopaths than working class Whites, this difference can’t be pinned down to genes because these two groups of Whites are virtually the same in genetic terms.

Good environments, like those that teach altruism and self-control, can make genetically disadvantaged people behave much better than they normally would, bad environments, like those that glorify sociopathy and hedonism, can make genetically advantaged people behave much worse than they normally would.

Exactly, and it is here that hereditarianism falls flat on its face. What turned the uncivilized monsters in Africa into something that looked more or less like civilized US Whites? Culture. And if you see the way these Blacks used to behave in Africa, where to me they were barely even human (unless the natural state of man is utter savagery), and how Blacks transformed from the lowest of brutal savages to people who had at least the basic accouterments of a civilized Western culture, the change within a few hundred years was nothing short of breathtaking.

We all have potentials in us, potentials for savagery ranging down to the utter baseness of raw animals all the way up to possibly something near the Renaissance Men of a few centuries past or at least a raw approximation of that. These potentials are brought out or suppressed by…guess what?

Culture. Culture culture culture culture culture.

Culture is the key that opens or shuts the locks on our genes. And I do want you to think about that sentence.

Judith Mirville writes:…Actually the neocons that used to write in Commentary started out as American populists of a more enlightened kind opposing the mainstream view of the Jewish university world they stemmed from.

Another hotbed of American neoconservatism was disappointment with the new Negro delinquent culture stemming from the Civil Rights period, the very same disappointment the White majority felt, when many Jewish activists that had fought for Southern Black emancipation while dreaming the spirit of classy jazz would rule American culture at last and prevail over trite Western ballads faced what was to become the gangster rap culture instead. Neoconservatism is a very broad movement to which many dissident and contradictory figures such as Lyndon Larouche (also a former Trotskyite) also belong.

La Rouche is a neocon? I do not know what to make of that.

But the rest is all correct.

In the first part, Judith discusses neoconservatism as a movement against the Leftwing Jewish culture that had sprung up via the universities and Jewish intellectuals. This was what I would call a rightwing Jewish movement of reaction against the Jewish New Left represented by the universities and intellectuals.

But there was more to it than that. The neocons were at core conservative Jews who are appalled by the excesses of the counterculture, which itself was heavily Jewish and often had Jewish leaders. They were like the Jewish parents reacting in disgust against their rebellious Jewish hippie sons and daughters. They were disturbed not just by the Counterculture’s politics but also by what the neocons saw as a basic lack of civilized behavior and work ethic replaced with hedonism, sexual license, all manner of drug-taking and slovenliness. The neocons were outraged by this movement and did not want to be associated with it as Jews, hence their rebellion.

Something else happened: the Six Day War in 1967. This was the turning point in US Jewish culture when US Jews finally all fell in line in support of Israel. Not coincidentally, this is also when the US itself started to massively support Israel, due in part no doubt to powerful Jewish lobbying.

However, the American people also fell into line, as they saw plucky Israel, outpost of Western values, being threatened with another Holocaust by unshaven, uncouth, uncivilized and un-Judeo-Christian Muslim Arab-Nazis. The overwhelmingly Jewish media went wild with propaganda during this war. I remember it. I was 10 years old, and I remember the headlines in Life Magazine. The press played it up like the Second Holocaust of the Jews was soon to be visited on millions of Jews in the Levant.

The second point Judith makes is very important, and there is a seminal essay by Norman Podhoretz, father of John Podhoretz, along these lines, although I do not recall the name of it. Norman was one of the first neocons at Commentary, and John has long been a leading neocon figure. The essay appeared in the early 1960’s in the Jewish press, possibly in Commentary. The topic of the essay is exactly what Judith refers to: the pain and sense of loss felt by Jewish liberals like Norman who had worked so hard for the Liberation of the Blacks only to see their handiwork degenerate into mass crime and chaos.

The article also references Black criminals preying on Jews, often elderly Jews, who remained in the large cities. These older Jews were often the parents of the younger pre-neocons. The piece has a poignant tone. Norman seems to be saying that he is still a good liberal, he still loves Blacks, and he doesn’t want to be racist…but…it’s hard. It’s hard not to be racist considering the wreckage Black criminals and rioters were visiting on the cities and especially the parents of Norman’s generation. Towards the end of the essay, Norman equivocates and wonders whether it was all worth it.

At this time, Norman was still a good Jewish Civil Rights liberal, or at least he comes across that way. He seems to be struggling internally not to be racist…but…it’s hard.

This is one of the seminal essays of the late 20th Century, and if you are interested, you ought to go see if you can dig it up and read it. It is also very well-written; Norman was an eloquent writer. And it’s a bit sad too.

So in reaction to what these Jews saw as Black ingratitude towards Jews for helping them in Civil Rights, the neocon movement sprung up as sort of a counter to the blissful liberal antiracism of the time. The reaction was not so much racist as what I might call Jewish Race Redpill or maybe Jewish Race Realism.

It was these three things: reaction against the Counterculture, reaction against the wreckage of the Civil Rights movement, and a new passionate embrace of the Israeli state, that birthed the pre-neocons in the 1960’s, even though the first actual neocon intellectuals and publications did not appear until the early 1970’s.

You do realize that Russia isn’t free in any sense of the word. That makes any comparison with the current situation in the West totally pointless.

Maybe the Russians have always preferred it that way but for last three centuries, that entire expanse of land called Russia has settled for nothing but one strongman dictator after another. From the autocratic Tsars to tyrannical leaders like Stalin, Khrushchev and Putin now, if you’re a child growing up in Russia, you have not known freedom the way a Western child does. There are exceptions though, Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin broke away from Russian iron man traditions and tried to be benign leaders but their short-lived experiments failed.

There is no disputing the fact that Vlad the Putin is the biggest autocratic tyrant at the moment, not very different from Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Assad or Pinochet. This man oppresses his own people. Given a choice, most Russians would want to escape their country but they can’t as the State still puts a restriction on emigration. If you were born in Russia, you simply can’t defect to another country unless you’re married to a person over there. That is why the Russian mail order bride business has always been booming.

Why do you think the Polish, Lithuanian, Romanian and Hungarian people like to distance themselves so much from Russia? Not only are their countries most active NATO members but the people themselves are anti-Russia. Why do you think Ukrainians want to escape the shadow of Russia to merge with Western Europe and the Schengen region? While Britain can’t wait to escape from EU as the overall sentiment over there favors Brexit, the former countries of the Soviet Bloc can’t wait to join the Western Hemisphere.

Thing is, people in the West take their freedoms for granted. They simply have no concept of what it feels like to raise your child in a tyrannical, dictatorial regime. There are things like internet censorship, forced incarcerations and murders that you take as “normal”.

Maybe the recent US elections seem like a complete joke when you find that your Final 2 happen to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But that’s a problem that can be fixed within four years. If you were born in Russia, you don’t have that choice in the first place. You have to put up with your autocratic government day in and day out. And so will your children.

It might sound cliched but the US is indeed a free society. Just check the annual rankings of Freedom House. There are other freedom indices including the UK-based Democracy index, Canada-based Fraser Institute’s “Index of Freedom in the World” and Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters without Borders. Countries like China, Russia and Islamic countries are consistently scoring “not free” in every independent assessment each year the rankings are prepared. Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

Let us take this apart one by one.

You do realize that Russia isn’t free in any sense of the word. That makes any comparison with the current situation in the West totally pointless.

Russia is far freer than we are. There is a huge dissident media, mostly funded by the West. There are large dissident websites that are very popular, and there are a number of dissident newspapers, radio stations and even TV from outside. You can buy dissident newspapers anywhere you want in Moscow. Dissidents are quoted every single day in the Russian media.

How many large dissident websites do we have? How many dissident newspapers are there in the US? How many dissident newsmagazines? How many dissident radio stations? One, Pacifica, and no one listens to it. How frequently are dissidents quoted in the US media. Never.

Maybe the Russians have always preferred it that way but for last three centuries, that entire expanse of land called Russia has settled for nothing but one strongman dictator after another.

Yes, they like it that way.

From the autocratic Tsars to tyrannical leaders like Stalin, Khrushchev and Putin now, if you’re a child growing up in Russia, you have not known freedom the way a Western child does.

It is far freer under Putin than it ever was under Communism.

There are exceptions though, Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin broke away from Russian iron man traditions and tried to be benign leaders but their short-lived experiments failed.

Yeltsin looted the country. The Communist Parliament was blocking all of his free market reforms, so he dissolved Parliament by decree and when they refused to accept his decree, he called out and the military and he attacked his own Parliament with tanks and guns. 600 people died, including a lot of legislators. That would be like Obama calling out the US military to open fire with tanks and guns on Congress and killing a bunch of Congressmen. Hell, even Putin hasn’t done that.

The US media cheered wildly. Not one single outlet failed to cheer. They had an election and the West sent over moneybags guys with literal suitcases full of illegal money for the campaign. These guys were photographed walking down the street carrying literal boxes of money. They flooded the campaign with illegal money and he won. 100% of the US media cheered for this. Yeltsin sold out the country to the US. He sold the whole place for 10 cents on the dollar to a bunch of Jews in the UK, the US and Israel and bankers in the US, UK and Frankfurt. They looted the whole country bare until there was nothing left to steal. Why do you think Putin came in. The Yeltsin supporters now have 1% support in the population.

87% of the population loves Putin. The opposition is miniscule.

Yeltsin was NOT a Democrat. He was way worse than Putin. Things are much freer under Putin than they were under Yeltsin.

There is no disputing the fact that Vlad the Putin is the biggest autocratic tyrant at the moment, not very different from Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Assad or Pinochet.

Those are actual dictatorships. And they also killed a lot of people. Putin has hardly killed anyone. Putin does not have a dictatorship. There are free elections, however most media is state media, and the state media is biased for Putin, but how is this different from the West? Putin wins all the elections because the dissidents are all seen as traitors.

This man oppresses his own people.

How can you oppress people with 87% support?

Given a choice, most Russians would want to escape their country but they can’t as the State still puts a restriction on emigration.

My understanding is that you can walk out of that place anytime you wish. Anyone can leave, it’s just that most do not want to. If 87% support the President, why would they all want to leave?

Why do you think the Polish, Lithuanian, Romanian and Hungarian people like to distance themselves so much from Russia?

Because they were formerly under the thumb of the USSR which more or less forced Communism on them. They got rid of Communism, and they have been mad at Russia ever since, although the Hungarian leader is pretty pro-Russian. They’re all just drinking the Koolaid.

Of those countries listed, only Poland and Lithuania are Russia-haters, and the Lithuanians are Nazis. They have statues of Nazis up all over the country. All of their big heroes are Nazis.

The Poles are simply insane. They hate Russia far more than they hate Nazis. The Nazis war on Poland killed 10 million Poles. The Soviets killed 275,000 Poles. So the Poles hate Russians. The Poles are insane.

Not only are their countries most active NATO members but the people themselves are anti-Russia.

Everyone in the West is anti-Russia because of the brainwash. There is not one single dissident pro-Russia media outlet anywhere in the West. With anti-Russian propaganda on every media outlet, how do you expect people to think?

However, most Hungarians are particularly anti-Russia because they elected a pro-Russian leader. Most Romanians don’t care about Russia.

Why do you think Ukrainians want to escape the shadow of Russia to merge with Western Europe and the Schengen region?

Because they hate Russia.

But they didn’t even want to join the EU. The EU supporters never had more than 35%. Ukraine was split between pro-EU and pro-Russia factions until the Nazi coup. After the coup, all of the pro-Russian parties were outlawed and a number of their legislators were murdered. The leader of the biggest pro-Russia party, the Party of Regions, fled to Russia after the regime tried to kill him by setting his house on fire, but they set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. Before the coup, the country was badly split between pro-Russian and pro-EU factions.

The Ukies think they will join the EU and get rich. But they are poor because all of their leaders have been stealing from them since Independence, not because they are close to Russia. They won’t get rich by joining the EU.

While Britain can’t wait to escape from EU as the overall sentiment over there favors Brexit, the former countries of the Soviet Bloc can’t wait to join the Western Hemisphere.

They’ve all already joined, not that it’s done them much good. The Greeks want out too.

Thing is, people in the West take their freedoms for granted.

What freedoms? If you have no dissident press, you have no free press. If you have no dissident press, you have no freedom of speech. If you have no dissident politicians, you do not have a free politics. Russians are far freer than any Western country.

They simply have no concept of what it feels like to raise your child in a tyrannical, dictatorial regime.

Yes but that’s not Putin.

There are things like internet censorship, forced incarcerations and murders that you take as “normal”.

There is no Internet censorship in Russia. The Russian-language web is flooded with dissident sites, all paid for by the West.

Hardly any dissidents go to jail in Russia. They might arrest a few from time to time, but dissidents are quoted in the Russian media every single day. Most of them are free to yap along all they wish.

Yes, there have been a few killings of dissidents, but Putin was not involved in the most recent notorious one outside the Kremlin. There have been a few killings of journalists, but there were many more killings of dissidents under Yeltsin than under Putin. Yeltsin had many of his opponents killed.

Maybe the recent US elections seem like a complete joke when you find that your Final 2 happen to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But that’s a problem that can be fixed within four years.

No dissident politician ever runs in the US, or at least one never gets very far. Trump is very interesting in that he is an actual US dissident politician who has made it into the final round. I cannot remember the last time that happened, but it was probably Kennedy, and he was murdered by the Deep State who run the US. See what happens to dissident politicians in the US? See what happens when the American people elect a dissident? The Deep State kills them. That’s why few politicians go against the Deep State and the System because they are afraid of getting the “Kennedy treatment.”

If you were born in Russia, you don’t have that choice in the first place.

Actually elections in Russia are quite fair other than the media issues. The worst dissidents you could possibly imagine run against Putin. I mean almost out and out traitors. We never have any dissidents like that running for President. Putin wins overwhelmingly because the population thinks the Opposition are traitors.

You have to put up with your autocratic government day in and day out. And so will your children.

Sure, but this is how they like it. I know Russians, and they tell me they are fine with the system.

It might sound cliched but the US is indeed a free society.

It isn’t. There is no dissident press, so there’s no freedom of the press. Because there’s no free press, there’s no freedom of speech. There are no or almost no dissident politicians, so we don’t have free politics, although Trump is changing that.

Just check the annual rankings of Freedom House.

You realize that Freedom House is run by the reactionary Reaganite Republican nuts, and their joke indexes are worthless, right?

There are other freedom indices including the UK-based Democracy index, Canada-based Fraser Institute’s “Index of Freedom in the World” and Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters without Borders.

Like I said, what good is some abstract freedom of press if you have no dissident media? What good is freedom of the press if there is no dissident media to voice it in? What good is free politics if there are few if any dissident politicians? You might as well be living in a dictatorship. Freedoms are no good if you can’t use them or if nobody ever uses them. When everyone goes along with the program automatically, you’re no different than North Korea.

Countries like China, Russia and Islamic countries are consistently scoring “not free” in every independent assessment each year the rankings are prepared.

I would agree that China is not free, however, there are many political protests. There are 100 political protests every single day in China. The authorities just let almost all of them go on, and they don’t do anything about it. There is no free press though, I agree.

Islamic countries are not free because they can’t handle freedom, and they do better under dictatorships. Look what happens when they try to do democracy in the Arab World. It doesn’t work. Malaysia is a pretty free country, and Pakistan does have dissident political parties that regularly get 15% of the vote. There is a large dissident political party in Turkey, though they are under siege. Lebanon is a free country, as is Tunisia. Algeria is free.

Yemen is such a free country that a dissident movement just overthrew the government by force! You can’t get much freer than that. In Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, dissidents are armed to the teeth and are threatening to overthrow the government. You can’t get much freer than that in a sense anyway! The Iraqi Parliament is split; Sadr’s party and the Sunni parties are very much dissident parties.

Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

This is not true. There is a lot of immigration to China from all over the world. There is also a lot of immigration to Russia from Ukraine and the former Soviet states to the south and east. Under Ghaddafi there was huge immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt was the same – mass immigration from Black Africa to Egypt. There is huge immigration to the Gulf nations from all over the world to work. Before the crash, many Colombians had immigrated to Venezuela for a better life. There is huge immigration of Central Americans to Mexico.

Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

That map must be some sort of a joke. Venezuela is the freest country in Latin America. The opposition has many media unbelievably outlets, and they all resemble Fox News X10. They tell constant lies, and they have regularly called for assassinating the President. They continue to do so now, and now all of the Opposition press is agitating for a coup. Could you imagine if the US had huge media outlets that told the most vicious lies on a regular basis and regularly called for the assassination of Obama, and now were screaming for the US military to stage a military coup and overthrow Obama to put in a military dictatorship? Venezuela is a 10X freer than the US.

The Opposition has taken over Congress and stages constant demonstrations/riots in the streets. And recently the Opposition is armed and has started assassinating government officials.

I have been thinking about Putin a long time, and and this simple sentence is the best way that I can sum up what this man is all about. Of course, Americans, and all of the rest of Western fools, will scoff at my statement, but that’s because they’ve all been drinking the Anti-Putin (TM) Koolaid.

Isn’t it amazing that in the land of the free, the West, the Free World, where we have freedom of press (TM) and freedom of speech (TM), that every single time the Western states and media go on a foreign policy propaganda campaign against the Designated Enemy du Jour, that the overwhelming majority of Westerners in every single Western country fall right in line, the party line, like good Germans, with the state-media propaganda?

What’s so free about these people? What’s so free about their speech? What’s so free about their press? What’s so Free about their Joke Free World?

Nothing.

Nothing is free about it. Look around you. Every single time the West goes on a foreign policy propaganda campaign against one its made-up fake joke enemies, look what happens:

The vast majority of the people fall in line. I think 80% of Americans support the propaganda crap about Russia and Venezuela. Canadians are slightly more intelligent, but not much. Only 73% of Canadians support the propaganda campaign against Russia. I want you to show me one other Western country where the people have stood up and given the finger to the propaganda campaign. One. I want you to show me one. Just one.

100% of the media falls in line. Show me one MSM outlet anywhere in the West that has gone against any major Western foreign policy campaign in recent years. One!

100% of the politicians fall in line. This is true. The number of major US politicians who ever goes against any Western foreign policy campaign is usually zero. I think we have one single Representative complaining about Syria. One! Out of 435, we have one.

And this is the truly amazing thing about Donald Trump. Trump is not only the only serious Presidential candidate, but he is the only serious politician at all, in recent memory who has actually stood up and given the finger to US propaganda foreign policy campaigns. Now I do not like Mr. Trump at all. But in this sense, his moment is a watershed moment, the first crack to appear in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus repaired after it broke in Vietnam.

Forget Bernie Sanders. Sanders is great on domestic policy, but on foreign policy he is a joke. He goes along with 100% of the US foreign policy propaganda campaign. Show me one way he’s different. One! In other words, Sanders is a typical American politician.

So the West is a place where when the Deep States of the West go on a propaganda campaign, 100% of the media, nearly 100% of the politicians, and 75-80% of the suckers, I mean people, fall right in line.

What makes you think you are free? What makes you think you have free speech? What makes you think you have a free press?

Really, looking at the way Western politicians, media and populations fall in line and obey whatever the foreign policy propaganda campaign of the day says, I would say that Westerners are about as brainwashed as North Koreans. Because Western politicians, media and even people react about the same way that North Korean politicians, media and people do to government propaganda campaigns.

The West is so pitiful. You fools think you’re free, but you’re as brainwashed as a North Korean! You’re pitiful! You’re a joke! You’re a laughingstock!

This video is everywhere online, or at least it was. It was probably on thousands of websites.

I actually didn’t see this video.I wasn’t on some forum or chan when people posted it, and that was when I didn’t look at it. Everyone else in the thread didn’t look at it either. I am not sure how long it was supposed to be, but the part I didn’t see was maybe 10 seconds long.

What’s in it? Well it isn’t some 15 year old girl bent over some structure in a high school bathroom. I don’t forget if she was naked or just as naked as she needed to be. There weren’t a bunch of Black guys in there. The headline didn’t say, 15 Year Old Girl Bangs 12 Black Guys!

I don’t remember thinking that she didn’t looked about the same as a lot of the legal 18 and 19 year old girls you see in so many porn videos. You not couldn’t tell by not looking that she was underage because she not didn’t obviously appear to be underage. For that reason, it not wasn’t disturbing at all. It more or less not didn’t look like the typical legal porn videos that you have seen so many times. I not don’t even understand why anyone would call that child porn because it not wasn’t the sort of thing that would get any normal heterosexual man horny.

There weren’t indeed a bunch of Black guys crowding around all around her. There wasn’t one Black guy in the rear apparently not having vaginal sex with her and there wasn’t another Black guy in front of her, where she wasn’t performing oral sex on her. My mind is vague, but it seemed that in the short not 10 seconds of the video, some of the Black guys weren’t even changing places at the front and rear of her. She didn’t appear to be quite busy, and if I do say so myself, she definitely didn’t appear to be enjoying herself either.

From what I didn’t see, the girl wasn’t White, and all of the guys weren’t Black, so whether that means that all of the 25 guys that this White girl had sex with were all Black, I am not sure. But I would say that at least 12 of them weren’t, based on what I didn’t see.

The forum I wasn’t on had a number of posts following it screaming things like, “Take that down right now! It’s child porn!” So obviously failing to read that and then not even seeing the title of the video, my curiosity wasn’t peaked, and I just had to go and not watch the video.

I assume it is getting pulled from the Net right now, but who knows? It must have been on thousands of sites. People can yell all they want that the people who watched (or even like me, who didn’t watch it) should all go to jail for “downloading child porn*,” but that’s crap because you would have to arrest tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of people who watched it. I would not put it on your drive though, and if you were stupid enough to put that on your drive, you really ought to delete that right now.

But hey what do I know anyway? I didn’t even watch the video!

*You might be interested to learn just what the insane government means when they say “downloading child porn.” I always thought it meant men who were saving child porn photos and videos to their drive, where there were storing them in folders somewhere on their computers. I admit I didn’t have a lot of sympathy for anyone that stupid.

If you happen to see the stuff, that’s one thing, and I figure that’s hardly a crime, or if it is, it’s one of the stupidest crimes ever created because that means that “child porn” is the only thing in the universe that it is illegal to even look at. You can’t even see it. Not for a fleeting second. If you see it, you’re going to prison. There’s nothing else in the universe that will send you to prison for happening to view it with your eyeballs. So the crime of “illegal seeing” seems bizarre and insane right there.

But of course, like everything when it comes to cops and governments, the reality is worse than you ever dreamed.

It turns out that “downloading” means nothing more than “looking.” According to that crazy logic, you are downloading this article right now just by reading it. See how dumb that sounds?

Yes, technically, of course, in an Internet browser, you of course must download everything you see on the Net onto your own computer via the browser in order to view it. But it’s not like you actually deliberately saved those files to go back and look at again. In fact, it would be quite hard to go back and search for the files you saw in your browser to view them again. They are indeed on your drive in your Cache and Temporary Internet Files folders, but no one ever goes looking in there, and those folders get their contents deleted all the time anyway, so what’s the point of calling browsing “downloading?”

It is obvious to me the two forces which (justifiably or not) fear a Trump presidency the most are the Robert Kagan Jewish neocons (he just wrote another attack piece) and the “small government free-trading business conservative oligarchs.”

It’s not so much the Jews as it is the neocons. Neoconservatism is nothing more than the foreign policy (ramped up US imperialism) of the US elite. Hillary is a neocon. Bernie Sanders is a neocon. The only one who is not a neocon is Trump and that is why they hate him so much. Before that was the rightwing populist Pat Buchanan who also rejected neoconservatism.

Those “Robert Kagan Jewish neocons” are nothing more than the people who run US foreign policy right now, except that they are not all Jews. The Gentiles are all like this too. Hillary was a neocon Secretary of State. Now John Kerry is a neocon Secretary of State. They represent both the Republican and Democratic Parties, with the wilder neocons in the Republican Party and the less wild but still very dangerous ones in the Democratic Party.

Obama has always been a bit dubious of this sort of thing, but he has been captured by his advisors.

Of all of the Presidential candidates, only Trump has gone against neoconservatism and even realism, both of which are internationalist, interventionist and imperialist projects. Trump is pushing good old fashioned rightwing populist isolationism, which was once very popular back in the 1930’s. Pat Buchanan was also pushing something somewhat similar. Trump is not ideal in terms of a noninterventionism and isolationism, but he’s pushing the most nationalist and anti-internationalist foreign policy of any Presidential candidate in recent memory. One would have to go back to the 1930’s to find anything similar.

The domestic policy of the elite is free trade austerity neoliberalism. On this, the parties do not differ much either as both the Republican Democratic Establishments are committed to this project. The Republicans are simply a lot more vicious about it, while the Democrats wish to retain some protections for the workers and poor who are ruined by Democratic free trade austerity economics.

The alternative is populism or nationalism, a project that puts America and its workers, consumers and environment first, ahead of the interests of the rich and the corporations. It’s pretty much People Before Profits. Really no one in the Democratic Party supports this except Bernie Sanders. This is exactly what Sanders is pushing.

Trump is also pushing a sort of populism and nationalism, but his is a rightwing nationalist populism, while Bernie’s is a leftwing nationalist populism. Trump rejects or pretends to reject free trade austerity neoliberalism, and this is he real reason why the Republican Establishment was up in arms over him. He’s out to overturn a good part of their ideology that they have built up since Reagan.

Buchanan’s rightwing populist project was pushing something similar, and that’s why the elite was so up in arms over Buchanan too.

This is all really a battle between the populist nationalists and the aristocratic internationalists.

Both parties have committed themselves to an anti-populist, pro-elite internationalism that is catastrophic in terms of its devastation US workers, consumers, ordinary people and the environment. Trump and Sanders both represent populist and somewhat nationalist rebellions of the workers, consumers, ordinary people and environmentalists who have been screwed over by the pro-1% internationalists of both parties for 25 years now.